 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I don't think I agree with any of this.
>>
>> Pick any two locations in London. Ask a London cabbie how to get from
>> one to the other. I guarantee they can do it faster than any satnav
>> computer.
>>
>> Pick up a picture of Harrison Ford. Show it to a bunch of people. Almost
>> all of them will instantly be able to tell you who it's a picture of.
>> Now try getting a computer to figure that out. Good luck with that.
>
> Not a contradiction to my point; note that /those/ types of
> "calculations" require almost exactly the /opposite/ of precision. Which
> is the domain /computers/ suck at.
>> The human brain is really very, very good at certain tasks. Quite
>> astonishingly good, when you actually think about it. But it's very bad
>> at certain other tasks.
>
> Exactly. And among those "certain other tasks" is virtually anything
> involving precise computations.
To quote myself again: I don't agree with any of this.
Try walking across the room. Trust me, this requires some pretty damned
precise computations. Don't believe me? Drink some alcohol, and try the
same task. Hard, isn't it? You know robotics engineers have struggled
for years to make a bipedal robot that can perform the same apparently
trivial task?
Balance is hard. A few grams one side or the other and you fall over.
That sounds pretty precise to me. And yet people ride bicycles. How many
robots have you seen ride a bicycle?
You say people can't recognise a familiar face with /certainty/, but I
reject that. A computer might look at a face and rate the probability of
it belonging to various people, but when I see a person I know, I *know*
exactly who I'm looking at. Instantly. What's more, when I see a
computer-generated image of Davy Jones, I recognise it as resembling
Bill Nighy. How many computer facial recognition programs can do that?
Again, sounds pretty damned accurate to me.
There are computer programs that compute a "fingerprint" of a piece of
music, and can supposedly recognise the same recording that has been
altered slightly. But a human listener can recognise the same piece of
music performed by a completely different group, and a totally unrelated
style. No computer can do that. And it's not just that humans use more
"fuzzy" and less "precise" matching to do their recognition; if that
were the case, the matching would just be really unreliable. But
actually, humans are REALLY FRIGGING GOOD at this stuff.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/7/2011 1:37, Invisible wrote:
> But a human listener can recognise the same piece of music
> performed by a completely different group, and a totally unrelated style. No
> computer can do that.
This is incorrect. I watched our server listen to someone singing
"Yesterday" on American Idol and our computer correctly recognizing it as a
Beatles song.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Try walking across the room. Trust me, this requires some pretty damned
> precise computations. Don't believe me? Drink some alcohol, and try the
> same task. Hard, isn't it? You know robotics engineers have struggled
> for years to make a bipedal robot that can perform the same apparently
> trivial task?
>
> Balance is hard. A few grams one side or the other and you fall over.
> That sounds pretty precise to me. And yet people ride bicycles. How many
> robots have you seen ride a bicycle?
>
> You say people can't recognise a familiar face with /certainty/, but I
> reject that. A computer might look at a face and rate the probability of
> it belonging to various people, but when I see a person I know, I *know*
> exactly who I'm looking at. Instantly. What's more, when I see a
> computer-generated image of Davy Jones, I recognise it as resembling
> Bill Nighy. How many computer facial recognition programs can do that?
> Again, sounds pretty damned accurate to me.
>
> There are computer programs that compute a "fingerprint" of a piece of
> music, and can supposedly recognise the same recording that has been
> altered slightly. But a human listener can recognise the same piece of
> music performed by a completely different group, and a totally unrelated
> style. No computer can do that. And it's not just that humans use more
> "fuzzy" and less "precise" matching to do their recognition; if that
> were the case, the matching would just be really unreliable. But
> actually, humans are REALLY FRIGGING GOOD at this stuff.
You have a grave misconception here:
As has been said before, the human brain is anything but precise. It actually is
very very good at correcting errors and adapting to them. Walking
across a room is not a precalculated series of movements like it would be for
most robots. The brain is constantly regulating all your movements dependent on
the millions of information it receives from your body.
Whenever anything happens that's not quite as it was "planned" it will just
change the movement slightly without your conciousness even noticing.
Facial recognition is much the same. The human brain has dedicated structures
for exactly that purpose. If they are damaged, the person suddenly can't
recognize faces anymore. I once saw a report about someone having a stroke and
losing this ability. He was unable to relearn this ability, because the
"dedicated hardware" could not be "emulated in software", so to speak. Those
dedicated structures have evolved over millenia for this one single purpose. You
cannot expect a computer to perform with the same efficiency on a general
purpose processor.
And about accuracy of facial recognition:
How sure you are about recognizing someone depends largely on how well you know
that person and if there's other persons you know that look alike. If someone
has a distinct face than your confidence of recognition is high. But if you look
at identical twins you'll be less sure of recognizing them correctly.
So how can you say you are 100% sure you recognized someone? It's just that your
confidence is high enough for you to think you are 100% sure.
Regards
Aydan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/06/2011 04:28 PM, Aydan wrote:
> Walking
> across a room is not a precalculated series of movements like it would be for
> most robots.
...which is why the robot is wrong. The *correct* way to navigate
unknown terrain is to constantly monitor and adapt to your surroundings.
> Whenever anything happens that's not quite as it was "planned" it will just
> change the movement slightly without your conciousness even noticing.
Yes. And these changes are very, very precise. If they weren't, you'd
fall over. The fact that it does this in a feedback loop doesn't negate
the need for very exact, very fine controls.
> Facial recognition is much the same. The human brain has dedicated structures
> for exactly that purpose. If they are damaged, the person suddenly can't
> recognize faces anymore.
Like I said: The human brain is an elaborate special-purpose
computational device which is ridiculously good at the things it's
designed for, and drastically less good at the things it isn't designed for.
> And about accuracy of facial recognition:
> How sure you are about recognizing someone depends largely on how well you know
> that person and if there's other persons you know that look alike.
People have actually done research on this. The vast majority of people
recognise other people with stunning accuracy. Not that they /think/
they do, but that you can actually /measure/ this.
That said, it's also been found that people from a different ethnic
group tend to look more uniform to you than they do to people belonging
to that ethnic group. Whether this is a genetic or environmental thing
is a subject of some debate. (Although it seems quite reasonable to me
that it's simply a calibration issue.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But a human listener can recognise the same piece of music
>> performed by a completely different group, and a totally unrelated
>> style. No computer can do that.
>
> This is incorrect. I watched our server listen to someone singing
> "Yesterday" on American Idol and our computer correctly recognizing it
> as a Beatles song.
This would be a rather stunning result for AI. Last time I checked, AI
is poor to the point of being utterly useless for most if not all
recognition tasks. Even something trivial like OCR doesn't work very
well yet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/7/2011 8:28, Aydan wrote:
> confidence is high enough for you to think you are 100% sure.
Or, more precisely, you can be 100% sure and still be wrong. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/7/2011 8:39, Invisible wrote:
> This would be a rather stunning result for AI.
It wasn't even what you'd call AI nowadays. It was just pattern matching.
Why are you using the subjunctive, as if this is a fictional story?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/06/2011 04:40 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 6/7/2011 8:28, Aydan wrote:
>> confidence is high enough for you to think you are 100% sure.
>
> Or, more precisely, you can be 100% sure and still be wrong. :-)
If you want to split hairs, even events with probability 1 can fail to
happen. (Contrary to what your introductory statistics book probably
told you...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/06/2011 04:41 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 6/7/2011 8:39, Invisible wrote:
>> This would be a rather stunning result for AI.
>
> It wasn't even what you'd call AI nowadays. It was just pattern matching.
Given that two different, unrelated recordings of the same piece of
music have entirely unrelated waveforms, I'm not sure how you can claim
that simple pattern matching would find such a complex similarity.
> Why are you using the subjunctive, as if this is a fictional story?
Damnit, now I have to go look up what a "subjunctive" is...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/06/2011 04:45 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Damnit, now I have to go look up what a "subjunctive" is...
NAAAARGH! IT BURNS! >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
